Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:84924
Return-Path: <smalyshev@gmail.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 56978 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2015 21:33:37 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 15 Mar 2015 21:33:37 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@gmail.com; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.47 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@gmail.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.220.47 mail-pa0-f47.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.220.47] ([209.85.220.47:34040] helo=mail-pa0-f47.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id DD/6C-31306-EAAF5055 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Sun, 15 Mar 2015 16:33:36 -0500
Received: by pacwe9 with SMTP id we9so44548825pac.1
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Sun, 15 Mar 2015 14:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject
         :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=R4tVLqpxa7cxWV4XgM3FuAHqwTiaEtlNkWgVUj6yAZs=;
        b=AgksWytCZ814j5PocttojINdeR/nJeKA33C375LlcvQ0g0k1ECUjIeor8snon7tahU
         OqBX/6LbSxrgBOs1NOGO3kdk8doEctS5ekA4eaYtFeFzWEMhdYg0H+MfiRcQXgd2mPrj
         +27TDP8Rgeqd9aTKYjpRdMjBbL8fgWCyWhmh7Ob/Ier8B49F0jPJ3966Cm/u8aX7zo+0
         8EeWJ/IGzkcpaZBYmR/GIVnSJOEFmyJgKvwVRzEJBN69f+HzOG4PVL5uLhdbD7ySwfQq
         eqDE35CY8/qE2CQMBxMZnJHmc1Nft+JWfW2UNM6QRW449/kl+e6jfAGI3SRrcRmLoDyU
         exag==
X-Received: by 10.70.46.65 with SMTP id t1mr127279742pdm.128.1426455210379;
        Sun, 15 Mar 2015 14:33:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Stas-Air.local ([24.32.31.168])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id z10sm13801457pas.18.2015.03.15.14.33.29
        (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
        Sun, 15 Mar 2015 14:33:29 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5505FAA8.2070804@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 2015 14:33:28 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?UTF-8?B?UMOhZHJhaWMgQnJhZHk=?= <padraic.brady@gmail.com>, 
 Michael Wallner <mike@php.net>
CC: Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>, 
 "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CAAyV7nEikYZNmaAnRy9hkRBnDDP=Ey43-nZbJGMHmQ_dAC_vgw@mail.gmail.com>	<07EB6CE3-B002-42C8-9D5B-C53602609B0A@php.net> <CALwr1Gn6MGTqANvyiJp91E3AT0k-=1Fokdw9Os6bUL5VTX08yw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALwr1Gn6MGTqANvyiJp91E3AT0k-=1Fokdw9Os6bUL5VTX08yw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Voting irregularities
From: smalyshev@gmail.com (Stanislav Malyshev)

Hi!

> voting practices. Anthony specifically notes that he is not calling
> them bad, or calling for them to be ignored in the context of the

He's not calling them bad directly, he is calling them "irregularities",
singling them out and arguing that they are the reason the RFC is
currently does not have necessary majority, and also specifically says
"not _all_ of them bad", implying at least some of them are. It's as
close to "calling them bad" as you can go while still having that out
that he didn't say it directly. It's like saying "I'm not saying X is a
complete crook but look at <a long list of arguments which is intended
to make everybody think X is a crook>".

> current RFCs. Merely noting that their existence has skewed this
> particular vote, as a recent ongoing example, which it has. I have to

Everybody's vote "has skewed this particular vote", by mere fact of
voting. So far we had many votes, in which many people voted, I have no
idea which of them voted for the first time when, still none of these
results were questioned for a reason that votes of people voting for the
first time or rarely is an "irregularity". Suddenly, when a particularly
controversial vote is going on, it is a problem. I do not consider it
healthy.

In other, more opportune and less controversial, time, with different
example at stake, this could be a useful discussion, though even then
I'd prefer not to start it with singling people out but with
establishing general principles and goals we want to achieve with this.
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalyshev@gmail.com